Do we really need the term Triple IPA???

Too difficult to look at the label to find the ABV?

 

Imperial/Double Stouts vary from 8%-20%+. Why can't IIPAs?

Under 7% ABV = IPA
8% ABV and over = Double/Imperial IPA

Why just not get rid of "Double" and just call all high ABV stuff "Imperial". Seems simpler and easier that way. And those super high ABV (D)IPAs should/can be called American Strong Ales.

 

I think drawing the line where you have is a bit arbitrary. Of course, the terms Triple, Quad, etc. are no more "marketing" than the terms Imperial or Double are "marketing". It's all marketing. We could just call it all "beer" the list the malt, hops, yeast, ABV, etc. on the label and let the consumer figure out what to expect. I don't think further distinction is a bad thing for anyone.

 

Sometimes. Especially if I'm in a different state and looking at a wall of unfamiliar beers. Rather than checking each one, I can quickly weed out several based on the big words on the front of the bottle. Not to mention the times ABV isn't listed on the bottle and I have to google it.

 

I knew someone would eventually bring up Trappist/Abbey ales. Problem? That's the actual name of the beer and not a modifier. For instance, a Dubbel is not a weaker Tripel and a Quad isn't a stronger Tripel. They are completely different beers.

 

I prefer the term "beer"

 

If that's the case then we don't need double or imperial either. But those terms are helpful because they give the consumer a good idea of the ABV range (and characteristics that are different from a lower ABV IPA) without having to scan the entire bottle. And Triple serves the same purpose.

You're telling me you have time to look at dozens, if not hundreds of bottles when you go to a beer store? It's usually in small print, each brewery puts it in a different place on the label, and sometimes it's not there at all. And keep in mind the majority of craft drinkers aren't on BA or following tons of breweries on social media familiarizing themselves with nearly every beer release like we are.

 

Calling IIPAs Triple or Quadruple IPAs will just make things and people more confused. I really don't understand why this is even an issue/argument. "Imperial....anything" = high ABV. No need for any other term. Seems pretty simple and easy to understand.

 

I find it to be overkill, but your mileage may obviously vary.

Nope. I don't care what the ABV on my beer is. I pick what I want and hope it is delicious.

 

So long as there is some distinguishing term for those super high ABV, and I think you're absolutely right that American Strong Ale is probably a better term, because the term IPA itself usually means all hops, and those 12%+ IPAs are definitely very malt forward.

 

When I think "IPA", I think "hop forward beer of a higher than average ABV".

Stupid shite like 120 Minute is no more an IPA than it is a stout.

 

Think about it for a min. Have you ever heard of "black IPA" Belgian IPA, NEIPA, ad nauseam? The only thing that makes any of those an IPA is the flavor of hops. IPA is used as a flavor descriptor, not as a defined style with a defined brewing technique or list of ingredients.

 

Yes we need to say triple because I like saying TIPA!

 

I was actually referring to Triple IPAs and the "Quadruple" IPAs some here have seen, not Belgians, although I believe someone else did mention them in this thread.

My point was basically remade by @dlcarst : I don't find the usage of the term "triple IPA" to be any more ridiculous, unnecessary, or "wrong" the the usage of the terms "double" or "imperial" IPA. Hell, those terms are at least as inaccurate as "triple", given that these beers aren't really "double" anything or "imperial" in any way (excepting RIS). It just seems odd to me to defend those terms, but tell others they've gone too far with the concept. A bit like "Get off my lawn."

 

No. And now I am seeing “Quadruple”. I an just going to start using them as a guideline for how many beer bottles I break over their stupid heads.

 

It might be me just being old and grumpy, but when you have existing terms, like imperial or double, that in essence just mean "bigger", then you don't need additional terms to mean "even bigger than that".

 

That's just all wrong! Those are different style IPAs. What you're talking about can be applied to just about any style. IPA is a style, not a flavor descriptor. Hoppy, hop-forward, bitter - those are flavor descriptors. Maybe @EvenMoreJesus can explain better.

 

@mudbug's point is one that's been made many times before in and outside of this forum. But, just like categorizing beer, you can take the concept to an extreme end where it doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean the original concept is invalid.

 

There are so many styles that are hop-forward and we don't refer to them as "IPAs", when describing those flavors. That's my point!

 

Nope. You did a bang-up job.